House passes bill (HR 4279) that will let the RIAA take away your home for downloading music

http://www.boingboing.net/ ^ | May 9, 2008 | Cory Doctorow

[JerseyHighlander]

House passes bill that will let the RIAA take away your home for downloading music

Posted by Cory Doctorow, May 9, 2008 3:15 AM | permalink

Glenn sez,

I was just alerted that the House of Reps has passed HR 4279, with the lovely name, PRO-IP (Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008). Like the doublespeak PATRIOT Act and Peacekeeper missiles, PRO-IP puts local law enforcement in a position to demand the forfeiture in criminal proceedings of stuff used to violate copyright. Which means that instead of the RIAA simply trying to collect fines, they can also incite local authorities to collect all the computers and related gear that was used to pirate.

This isn't a judgment on my part as to whether piracy is good or bad (I think copyright deserves to be protected through reasonable methods), but I am always horrified when civil enforcement morphs into criminal enforcement. Conservatives and liberals should be up in arms alike that local prosecutors and/or police could intervene as they desire in essentially a private affair arranged by the RIAA, and permanently seize thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in private property in addition to any civil penalties.

If this bill is passed in its present form by the Senate and signed, that means there's no more pro forma RIAA lawsuit payoffs, because if you wind up settling with the RIAA, you could still lose all your stuff in addition to any fee you paid them.

This is particularly irksome in light of the MSN Music shutdown, about which the EFF has written a strong and powerful letter. It is increasingly likely a normal person could have purchased music legally from an online site, burned it to an ordinary audio CD, and in the right set of circumstances be branded a pirate because the original "granting" authority no longer exists to prove that the consumer was a legitimate purchasers.

The more the law is constructed to sweep in folks who are absolutely observant of it, the more we need broader protections.

PDF Link (Thanks, Glenn!)

[JerseyHighlander]

From the PDF:

‘‘(ii) Any property constituting or derived
6 from any proceeds obtained directly or indirectly
7 as a result of a violation of subsection (a).
8 ‘‘(iii) Any property used, or intended to be
9 used, to commit or facilitate the commission of
10 a violation of subsection (a) that is owned or
11 predominantly controlled by the violator or by a
12 person conspiring with or aiding and abetting
13 the violator in committing the violation, except
14 that property is subject to forfeiture under this
15 clause only if the Government establishes that
16 there was a substantial connection between the
17 property and the violation of subsection (a).

That pretty much leaves it wide open there.   It uses the same methods as the "Comprehensive Drug Abuse & Control Act of 1970" , so since they can take your house for drugs, I have to assume that means they plan on taking your house for copyright infringement also.

You could say they will just confiscate your computers, but theres nothing that makes them stop there.

 

the voting scorecard?

Right here.

Only 11 Noes, to include Ron Paul. 

 

 

[muawiyah]

There's a point at which an agrieved party steps over the line of settlement and is carried away by greed.

That's also the same point that a jury cannot help but understand when they turn a killer loose.

RIAA is really, really close to that point.

These guys weren't breast fed were they.

[TLI]

I have to assume that means they plan on taking your house for copyright infringement also.

And it goes without saying, you will loose your Second Amendment right for life.

[messierhunter]

"This is particularly irksome in light of the MSN Music shutdown, about which the EFF has written a strong and powerful letter. It is increasingly likely a normal person could have purchased music legally from an online site, burned it to an ordinary audio CD, and in the right set of circumstances be branded a pirate because the original "granting" authority no longer exists to prove that the consumer was a legitimate purchasers."

This is truly bothersome to me. MSN music has already shut down and I believe my wife may have purchased music from them before. Not only are they turning off their DRM servers soon, but if I rip her songs onto CDs then I may as well have stolen them. I guess the lesson is "keep your receipts." If you can at least prove that you purchased songs online then perhaps you have a leg to stand on if ever anyone comes after you.

I never have liked the competition of DRM formats anyway; it's always seemed to me to be a way for companies to stifle competition amongst music players and music download services. It's just a way for them to force you to buy their music players to go with their download service, rather than let consumers decide.

[Bon mots]

If they want to fix copyright law, they should simply abide by the Berne Convention and CLOSE the US Copyright office!

It's just another tax and bureaucracy. EU Copyright

The Berne Convention (which the US has signed) states that all something needs is constructive notice to be copyrighted... and lately not even that. It's enough to prove that you wrote something first.

But in the US, you cannot sue for damages or attorney's fees if you did not register your copyright with the US Copyright office for a fee of $45.00. Everywhere else in the world, this protection is free.

Imagine a blogger paying this $45.00 for every post to be protected?

So for all intents and purposes, US Copyright protection is effectively 3 months for most people. The rest of the world give authors copyright protection for about 50 years after their death.

[JerseyHighlander]

This might be worth a Xer Ping?

[Regulator]

Gee, let's see. Lots of buildings and businesses were built or are staffed by illegal aliens.

I'll believe the U.S. Congress is serious about laws when they stop confiscating kids computers for downloading bad music and start confiscating the property of adults who damn well know better but break U.S. immigration and labor laws anyway.

[Joe Boucher]

It means they may take your home away if your KID is steeling music over the internet without even your knowledge.
Cause it happened on property you had direct control over though you are clueless.

[CJ Wolf]

let freedom ping!

[MrLee]

I can’t believe any court would let this stand. On second thought, yes I can......

Will Bush sign it?

[Wolfie]

Absolutely. They do the same to property owners when drugs are involved.

[mysterio]

Ron Paul voted against.

[mysterio]

They do the same to property owners when drugs are involved.

Once again, the cancer that is the failed war on drugs is used as precedent to steal the homes and property of non-drug users.

Better hope your kid doesn't download any music, or you might get treated like a drug dealer.

It's a sad state of affairs.

[JerseyHighlander]

It means they may take your home away if your KID is steeling music over the internet without even your knowledge.
Cause it happened on property you had direct control over though you are clueless.

Yes, children would be responsible up to $30,000 PER TRACK.  Sharing a single CD would wipe out the entire household wealth of the average American family.  Sharing 4 or 5 CD's would wipe out the wealth of American families in the 95% percentile of household wealth.

 

House Hobbles Online Innovation With HR 4279

Posted by Leslie Poston on December 8th, 2007

There are a number of things the government has no business legislating. Some of these things are because government doesn't belong in a certain type of decision. Some of them, however, are because the government doesn't fully understand the issue. HR 4279 falls into the second category, along with the SAFE Act discussed here yesterday. The matching Senate bill, not yet voted upon, is S 522.

What is the purpose of HR 4279? Good question. Sponsored by Rep John Conyers Jr (D-MI), it is supposed to determine penalties for intellectual property law violations. The thought that punishment for unauthorized use of someone else's intellectual property should be clearly outlined is a good idea. It's a good way to eliminate the arbitrary RIAA fines that have been generated in recent years by the RIAA's thug tactics in going after everyone from grandmothers to children, whether they have computer access and use illegal file sharing or not.

What makes HR 4279 problematic is that it is a bill sponsored and passed before its time. You can't mete out punishment without first clearly defining the crime. It is also problematic in the amount they determined the fine for illegal files to be - a whopping $30,000 per track. That's right - per track. That works out to $360,000 for a 12 track CD!

Why is $30,000 per track so reprehensible? Because this law has been enacted before we have hashed out fair use definitions and determined what illegal tracks consist of. It is putting the cart before the horse. As it stands now, the RIAA and the legislators who support the RIAA want copies of music you already own to be considered illegal, among other unreasonable demands. That means that according to this law, if you rip a CD to your computer then lose or damage the CD, that ripped CD could be considered illegal, even though you paid for it.

Now tally that up at $30,000 per track multiplied by your entire CD collection. It's a huge number, isn't it? And all because we haven't finished redefining what is a legal or illegal file in this new day of digital information. The RIAA's argument that I can't back up my CD collection, or copy it to my iPod, has made me angry from the beginning because it makes no sense. HR 4279 seemingly reenforces this problematic notion that a consumer would have to buy the same song or album up to 7 times or more in various formats to satisfy the RIAA greed machine.

Of course, a key way this bill got passed at all was by using the “preservation of the American economy” as a talking point. It also has provisions for several new government jobs, like an intellectual property right enforcement division in the Department of Justice. Any time you invoke “our economy” or “the children” or “new government jobs at high levels” in congress you stand a good chance of getting even the least well thought out bill passed.

This bill increases the scope of government enforcement of poorly defined “infringements” past a normal scale and into the realm of violation of individual rights. “Seizing expensive manufacturing equipment used for large-scale infringement from a commercial pirate may be appropriate,” said Gigi Sohn, president and founder of Public Knowledge. “Seizing a family's general-purpose computer in a download case, as this bill would allow, is not appropriate.”

Other problematic possible repercussions include classifying family members as innocent infringers, or college students as felony infringers. How can you make that movie for film class if you can't use music that you own on CD to make a sound track? What good is an online photo album, shared, if you can't use your own photos because they grabbed a background image of something that may be copyrighted? What good is an iPod if putting your CDs, cassettes and albums on it could be construed as innocent infringement?

This bill also opens a door way for government to put a muzzle on IPs and network neutrality. This is something the behemoths of big business at the RIAA and the major TelCos have been panting for for years. Think of the possible impact this will have on companies that make much needed and often used multi purpose devices, or places that offer free WiFi (already hobbled by the SAFE Act earlier this week), or company files on remote IP networks. This bill is a huge, huge blow to the culture of online innovation if it passes in Senate.

Until or unless we define illegal use in such a way that takes into consideration fair use of copyrighted material you already own this is a bad law. We have to define illegal use and illegal files clearly, and we have not yet begun to do so. This law could create an avalanche of harm for the average person who is under the (in my opinion correct) assumption that they should be able to use the copyrighted material the bought with their own money however they see fit, not to mention its possible impact to the small business and individual online.

For further analysis of the issue, visit Public Knowledge, EFF, and PC Magazine.

To voice your opinion on Senate Bill 522 and prevent it from being passed, write your Senator here.

To voice your opinion on HR 4279 and get it repealed, write your Representative here.

 

[sheana]

I keep telling everyone.....They Are ALL Ba$tard$!

[JerseyHighlander]

House passes “PRO-IP Act”

May 8, 2008

According to Grant Gross at PC World, the U.S. House of Representatives has just passed H.R. 4279, the so-called “PRO-IP Act” sponsored by John Conyers (D-MI) and funded by the copyright and telecommunications industries.

There are a number of big problems with H.R. 4279. Among other things, the bill mandates:

1. The creation of a cabinet-level “IP czar” position
2. 10 or so new IPR enforcement positions in the DOJ (think of them as corporate welfare cops)
3. Language that could justify the forfeiture of personal property used to commit copyright violations (h/t to Grant Gross’ article for pointing this out)

All of these provisions promise to be expensive, controversial, and intrusive for consumers and citizens.

As I have written earlier, the USHOR’s endorsement of this sort of pro-industry pap would appear to stem from campaign donations as opposed to sound legal reasoning and evidence-based policy-making

Another story on the bill includes the following quote:

“We applaud the members of the House of Representatives for passing the PRO-IP Act, H.R. 4279,” said Dan Glickman, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, in response to its passage. “It is a comprehensive, bipartisan measure that will strengthen our nation’s economy and generate more jobs for American workers by bolstering protections for intellectual property.”

He added, “Given the difficult economic times we face, the PRO-IP Act is welcome by both the business and labor communities because it can improve our nation’s economic outlook. I hope the Senate will move quickly to pass similar legislation.”

Excuse me Dan, but please clarify for me exactly how the PRO-IP Act will translate into an improved American economy? If the so-called mortgage crisis has taught me something it’s that the US Govt should not be propping up flawed business models through lenient legislation and friendly enforcement practices - that way lies economic perdition.

Hopefully, the Senate will have the sense to busy themselves with more important matters.

---------------------- 

 

Why does John Conyers support strict IP enforcement and H.R. 4279?

May 5, 2008

Representative John Conyers (D-MI) has put his reputation and committee authority behind H.R. 4279, the so-called PRO-IP Act (the acronym stands for: “Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property”).

The act was recently passed by Conyers’ judiciary committee and will now work its way onto the legislative schedule. It is backed by all the usual industry suspects (grouped together under the name of “the Copyright Alliance”) and is a potential disaster insofar as it threatens to impede fair use and balanced enforcement while increasing the criminalization of non-commercial infringement. H.R. 4279 would also create a new “Copyright Czar” within the federal government, a position that appears to be loosely modeled on the “Drug Czar” positions that have done so much to perpetuate the wasteful, expensive, and ineffective “war on drugs.”

While there is still the possibility that this bill could undergo substantive changes as it progresses through the house machinery, Internet users, civil rights activists, and technology consumers should be concerned about its current scope.

H.R. 4279 is bankrolled by multi-billion dollar corporate interests like Microsoft, News Corporation, and NBC, as well as industry lobby groups such as Business Software Alliance, the Motion Picture Association of America, and the Recording Industry Association of America. These organizations have made every effort to encroach on the rights and liberties of consumers through their efforts to limit legal file sharing, police Internet traffic, and conduct illegal digital surveillance. They represent an extremely regressive vision of the Information Age and have no qualms about imposing that vision on their customers by any means necessary.

As this analysis of the bill by the non-profit org. Public Knowledge details, there are many aspects of H.R. 4279 worth saving. Nevertheless, it advances a regressive IP agenda on a number of fronts. According to the summary, the bill would do the following:

Amends the federal criminal code with respect to intellectual property to: (1) enhance criminal penalties for infringement of a copyright, for trafficking in counterfeit labels or packaging, and for causing serious bodily harm or death while trafficking in counterfeit goods or services; and (2) enhance civil and criminal forfeiture provisions for copyright infringement and provide for restitution to victims of such infringement.

Establishes within the Executive Office of the President the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative to formulate a Joint Strategic Plan for combating counterfeiting and piracy of intellectual property and for coordinating national and international enforcement efforts to protect intellectual property rights.

Directs the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to appoint 10 additional intellectual property attaches to work with foreign countries to combat counterfeiting and piracy of intellectual property.

The creation of these new positions and procedures are based on the warped world-view of the MPAA and the RIAA whereby copying=counterfeiting=crime. The networked digital environment is just not that simple and the law enforcement powers of the U.S. government should not be based on such a lopsided foundation. The Congress can do better.

More importantly, H.R. 4279 is not the kind of project a well-established, populist democrat like Conyers needs to get behind. And yet, his support reflects a troubling relationship with big-money telecommunications and culture-industry interests. Take a look at Conyers’ career campaign contributions on OpenSecrets.org. That’s right, AT&T, Time Warner, Sprint-Nextel, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, and the National Association of Broadcasters all appear in the top 20. OpenSecrets also reports that Comcast and Clear Channel Communications ranked high among Conyers’ donors during the 2006 election cycle. Dig a little deeper and we learn that (in addition to labor unions) big Telecom and Technology firms still represent the largest proportion of Conyers’ PAC donations during 2007-2008.

Whether or not a direct connection between these contributions and Conyers’ voting patterns exists remains to be proven. However, the point is that Conyers has made his career by standing up for transparency, civil rights and liberties against moneyed corporate interests (like Tobacco and Guns) and Republican cronyism.

Conyers was a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, has been a strong voice against the Iraq war and a staunch critic of the Bush administration. As a result, he enjoys a reputation as a progressive bulwark. All the more reason he does not need to put his hands in the pockets of big telecom and tech corporations.

Instead of unconditionally supporting HR 4279 - a bill that threatens the freedom of the Internet and curtails innovation in the name of Big Business - Conyers should use his authority to re-shape the bill. He has a responsibility to his constituents and to other members of the Democratic Party whose interests do not lie with the Telecommunications and Software Industry giants. As a result, Conyers should not favor tougher enforcement of restrictive copyright laws. Unless it is radically transformed, HR 4279 will not support the citizens, consumers, or small-businesses who really need to benefit from the potential of digital technologies. John Conyers is exactly the sort of principled elected official who could change that.

Posted by aaron

 

[auboy]

Is a list available of RIAA political contributions?

[DBrow]

bump

[mysterio]

What a disgusting sellout by our congress.

Throw them all out.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Our socialist government hates private property. This is just the latest excuse to steal it.